tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post113750932019075703..comments2023-10-28T11:44:08.442-04:00Comments on G-town Love: This Government works for US...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post-1137593668087996822006-01-18T09:14:00.000-05:002006-01-18T09:14:00.000-05:00The BBC is supposedly impartial - that's its brief...The BBC is supposedly impartial - that's its brief and has been for 5o years now. How well it does is questioned by many, but it's kept well in check by a watchdog. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4609034.stm" REL="nofollow"> This</A> is their take on itAndy the Brithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13870197445835246850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post-1137593065586350392006-01-18T09:04:00.000-05:002006-01-18T09:04:00.000-05:00I understand the point... it's just a semantics th...I understand the point... it's just a semantics thing I find annoying. People commonly characterize a judge that rules in favor of something they agree with as fair an unbiased... once they disagree they're legislating from the bench and reading all of this stuff into the law.<BR/>It seems to me like a straw-man argument people set up for themselves... so was the supreme court legislating from the bench when they voted 6-3 on the Oregon prescription drug / assisted suicide thing?<BR/>I'm guessing if you ask a right to life person and a terminally ill person you'd likely get two very different answers.Erickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355633895765911782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post-1137529327888156902006-01-17T15:22:00.000-05:002006-01-17T15:22:00.000-05:00Judges don't inherently legislate from the bench. ...Judges don't inherently legislate from the bench. Their job is simply to interpret the laws, according to the Constitution. So when a law is passed that says "No Speeding" they can define what speeding is - 55, 65, or whatever. But when they legislate they would take speeding to encompass wearing a seatbelt and other things that they think are important but do not really relate to the law.<BR/><BR/>The Court should not be creating these laws. Their decisions are not subject to the same procedures (voting, vetos, etc.) that legislation, treaties and other laws have to pass before becoming laws.joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05986144259578414688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post-1137521831887776412006-01-17T13:17:00.000-05:002006-01-17T13:17:00.000-05:00Nice article Seth, how did you find it?I agree wit...Nice article Seth, how did you find it?<BR/><BR/>I agree with a lot of what the article said... essentially that confirmation hearings have become highly politicized to the point that they are "hollow"... i.e. not very meaningful. And yes, everyone's background / personal experiences impacts their decision making... the way you look at the world (the lens through which you see it) is formed by your life-experiences. Judges shouldn't come in with an agenda, and its important that person's views / lens are examined and understood.<BR/><BR/>People change, society changes, values change, acceptable norms change, and so does the supreme court along with the decisions and opinions they make.<BR/><BR/>My biggest qualm with the government is just how politicized every issue becomes. It seems like there are only a few senators who are willing to work together and compromise on issues (McCain Comes to mind). "It's either my way or no way", few people are willing to listen to the other side.<BR/><BR/>I see similar things happening in the media... people are able to shelter themselves by only going to certain news outlets that cater to their pre-dispositions (you listen to Rush or you listen to Air America). I get the sense that politicians are too scared to break away from people's expectations (a similar way to put this... which Joe mentioned is that their often beholden to their constituents / party / donors). Also like the title of Seth's post says... "they work for us" so if we're divided, our politicians will be as well. <BR/><BR/>Also "conservative" goes hand in hand with "tradition" so yea "conservatives" tend to not favor radical change... and judges sit on the bench so they inherently legislate from the bench (just pet-pevees).<BR/><BR/>All in all, interesting editorial that is relevant to what's going in our current U.S. politcal landscape. (Maybe not as exciting as Brad & Angelina Jolie's baby announcement... but much more meaningful).Erickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355633895765911782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6384103.post-1137516536671583952006-01-17T11:48:00.000-05:002006-01-17T11:48:00.000-05:00Yeah, the confirmation process is odd. The opposi...Yeah, the confirmation process is odd. The opposing party will invariably bad mouth the candidate, and the candidate will try to brush off all questions he can. But I am for a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Throughout history, "conservative" judges have been more predictable, and less apt to legislate from the bench.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you about the need to be more bi-partisan with the rest of our federal government. Right now, I think the republicans have the majority in the House and Senate and they've got W in the big house. Luckily guys like Delay and that lobbyist who started talking are helping to even the score. Personally, I plan to vote democrat in the next election unless they nominate a total jack-ass.<BR/><BR/>As for starting our own party, I like it. It may be unrealistic, but it is good to think about. The only issue I really care about is monetary reform. I'd like to put our government officials in control of our country, instead of the multi-national corporations that own them.joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05986144259578414688noreply@blogger.com